I'm not Labour I'm a communist. I'm not saying people should support Hoey I'm saying they shouldn't support a bunch of bastards that made the poor poorer and the rich richer, that are so bent they make the Tories look honest, that attacked the welfare state - and that if you support the LDs then that's precisely what you support

Click to expand...

As CH1 is my neighbour, I hope he won't mind me saying, from what he has put up in his windows he is supporting Greens this time around. A well known local. Rashid Nix. Who I know and is good guy imo.

I'm not Labour I'm a communist. I'm not saying people should support Hoey I'm saying they shouldn't support a bunch of bastards that made the poor poorer and the rich richer, that are so bent they make the Tories look honest, that attacked the welfare state - and that if you support the LDs then that's precisely what you support

In some ways the Hoey/ Brexit issue is a distraction. What is happening to Vauxhall is that it's becoming a home for the super rich. As are large parts of central London. Yes I would prefer a communist government that dealt with the super rich - permanent removal. As the main parties have shown themselves incapable of doing anything.

I cycle by Vauxhall every day. Find it nauseating to see that large tower. The penthouse flat owned by a Ukrainian Oligarch. I'd like a communist government that got rid of people like this and there penthouse flats.

No - I posted the list a while back. There is the Pirate Party, the Women's Equality Party, the Green Party, Lib Dems, Tory and Labour.

From talking to a couple of TUSC people recently it appears there is some sort of agreement with such groups not to oppose Labour this time - presumably because for the first time since 1983 the Labour manifesto is to some extent socialist.

I haven't studied it in depth yet - but yesterday there was a FREE edition of the Morning Star which is very anti Tory and pro Corbyn, which kind of underlines what I just said above.

What am I exaggerating? Are you denying the policies your party implemented when in government did not redistributed money from the poor to the rich?

I don't think the Greens are neo-nazi's but I do think the employing scab labour makes you scum. And I'm not and haven't been a member of LU or any other political party for that matter.

Click to expand...

You sound like the type of person Neil Kinncok was talking about in his famous rant:
"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council—a Labour council—hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers. I'm telling you - and you'll listen - you can't play politics with people's jobs and with people's services. The people will not abide posturing."

Hoey vs Liberals is unlikely to degenerate to the situation in Manchester I guess. That well known friend of the left Guido Fawkes picked up tweets from "Rasheed Stalin" including the picture below. That Twitter account has been closed (I checked). Guido has three tweets saved there showing Labour supporters who go round nicking and destroying posters from gardens in south Manchester.

You sound like the type of person Neil Kinncok was talking about in his famous rant:
"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council—a Labour council—hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers. I'm telling you - and you'll listen - you can't play politics with people's jobs and with people's services. The people will not abide posturing."

Click to expand...

That would be the shit Kinnock that sold out the miner's. Quite happy to be on the opposite side to that cunt.

And it's utterly pathetic to claim that not increase VAT or not employing scab labour are impossible promises. So are you denying that you party was part of a coalition government that redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich? Or are you accruing that they had no choice but to do that?

That would be the shit Kinnock that sold out the miner's. Quite happy to be on the opposite side to that cunt.

And it's utterly pathetic to claim that not increase VAT or not employing scab labour are impossible promises. So are you denying that you party was part of a coalition government that redistributed wealth from the poor to the rich? Or are you accruing that they had no choice but to do that?

Click to expand...

As Gramsci pointed out I'm a Green Party member. Were we part of a coalition?

I do not believe in Bipolar politics - that is the way of madness.

I believe in the Single Transferable Vote as used in the Republic of Ireland (and I think in Northern Ireland - though not allowed in mainland Britain).

I believe in negotiation and coalition.

I think that monolithic party government is disastrous - look at the state of Lambeth right now on libraries and estate regeneration.

Southwark is even worse on estates - though less bad apparently on libraries.

As regards national politics - if I was in Vauxhall I would vote for George Turner Lib Dem.

I will vote for Rashid Nix in my own constituency - I am very familiar with his views, he has run on a number of occasions at national and council level.

If I was in Streatham I might vote Green or Lib Dem. One factor that would influence me is if one or other 3rd party candidates might lose their deposit. I think it is iniquitous that parties have to pay £500 to stand in an election. Deposits plus advertising costs push us towards an American system where there are only two parties, both appealing to big business.

OK, sorry I thought you said you were a member of the LibDems. As for the rest it doesn't address anything I've raised, what is bipolar politics, other than a soundbite? If it's condemning using scab labour than I welcome being bipolar.

I'm increasingly of the view that the biggest divide in politics is between those who adopt principle as their guiding light and those who are prepared to compromise - ditch principle if you like - to achieve the least bad outcome.

The pure principled position is in a way the easiest. You can refuse to vote for anyone who does not abide by your principled views. However unless your principled views are held by the majority, then result is that the muddy centre ground gets into power (in one flavour or another). In fact it can be worse than that - you can end up with Tories rather than Labour - even if Labour are closer to the Tories than to your pure position on the left.

OK, sorry I thought you said you were a member of the LibDems. As for the rest it doesn't address anything I've raised, what is bipolar politics, other than a soundbite? If it's condemning using scab labour than I welcome being bipolar.

Click to expand...

Bipolar politics is a soundbite I just created.

By the way I agree with Ken Livingstone that Mayors are unnecessary. As he said there was nothing he did as Mayor than he couldn't have done as leader of the GLC. This is another example of Blairite centralisation now taken up by the Tories. In a way Mayors are locally elected Barons - easier to deal with than a democratic assembly.

You can refuse to vote for anyone who does not abide by your principled views. However unless your principled views are held by the majority, then result is that the muddy centre ground gets into power (in one flavour or another). In fact it can be worse than that - you can end up with Tories rather than Labour - even if Labour are closer to the Tories than to your pure position on the left.

Click to expand...

That is not wholly logical (IMHO). That is rather like the idea that you always vote Labour even if they close your libraries etc because you don't want the Tories (who might get in if you voted TUSC for example).

There was a boy whose name was Jim
His friends were very good to him
They gave him tea and cakes and jam
And slices of delicious ham
And chocolate with pink inside
And little tricycles to ride
They read him stories through and through
And even took him to the zoo
But there it was the awful fate
Befell him, which I now relate
You know (at least you ought to know
For I have often told you so)
That children never are allowed
To leave their nurses in a crowd
Now this was Jim's especial foible
He ran away when he was able
And on this inauspicious day
He slipped his hand and ran away
He hadn't gone a yard when BANG
With open jaws a lion sprang
And hungrily began to eat
The boy, beginning at his feet
Now just imagine how it feels
When first your toes and then your heels
And then by varying degrees
Your shins and ankles, calves and knees
Are slowly eaten bit by bit
No wonder Jim detested it
No wonder that he shouted "Ai"
The honest keeper heard his cry
Though very fat, he almost ran
To help the little gentleman
"Ponto," he ordered as he came
For Ponto was the lion's name
"Ponto," he said with angry frown
"Down sir, let go, put it down!"
The lion made a sudden stop
He let the dainty morsel drop
And slunk reluctant to his cage
Snarling with disappointed rage
But when he bent him over, Jim
The honest keeper's eyes grew dim
The lion having reached his head
The miserable boy was dead
When nurse informed his parents they
Were more concerned than I can say
His mother as she dried her eyes
Said "It gives me no surprise
He would not do as he was told."
His father who was self-controlled
Bade all the children round attend
To James's miserable end.
And always keep ahold of nurse
For fear of finding something worse.

That is not wholly logical (IMHO). That is rather like the idea that you always vote Labour even if they close your libraries etc because you don't want the Tories (who might get in if you voted TUSC for example).

Click to expand...

That is precisely the idea that I am (reluctantly) coming round to. It depends of course how close the risk is of the Tories getting in.

You sound like the type of person Neil Kinncok was talking about in his famous rant:
"I'll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council—a Labour council—hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers. I'm telling you - and you'll listen - you can't play politics with people's jobs and with people's services. The people will not abide posturing."

Click to expand...

Ironically it was kinnock that parachuted Kate hoey into the seat over the candidate chosen by the local party

I wouldn't listen to anything that man has to say, the beginning of the rot setting into labour if you ask me

That is precisely the idea that I am (reluctantly) coming round to. It depends of course how close the risk is of the Tories getting in.

Click to expand...

This is the art of tactical voting. I don't know if you were around in 1997 but there was an organisation called Charter 88 which gave guidance on how to vote in each and every constituency to get rid of the conservatives. It could be that they had an effect - can it all be down to Tony Blair's magnetic personality?

I'm increasingly of the view that the biggest divide in politics is between those who adopt principle as their guiding light and those who are prepared to compromise - ditch principle if you like - to achieve the least bad outcome.

The pure principled position is in a way the easiest. You can refuse to vote for anyone who does not abide by your principled views. However unless your principled views are held by the majority, then result is that the muddy centre ground gets into power (in one flavour or another). In fact it can be worse than that - you can end up with Tories rather than Labour - even if Labour are closer to the Tories than to your pure position on the left.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this. I don't think juxtaposing principled Vs compromisers stands up. The present muddy centre ground is a product of Thatcherism. Thatcher, for all I disagree with her, stuck to her "principles". She not only transformed the Tory party she also transformed the "common sense" of politics. As my name sske would say.

Thatcher as no compromiser.

Blair's "Third Way" political project was underlined by the work of theorists like Giddens. As well as the "end of history" of Fukuyama.

Can be categorised as a "principled" position.

As I've posted elsewhere the Evening Standard under Osborne has made an argument for continuing the "centre" ground. A Blairite Labour party and Cameronite Tory party. This appeared to be the culmination of the "end of history" thesis. Politics run by who would best manage Capitalism. So called neo liberal Capitalism. Socially liberal and economically neo liberal. ( Free markets, privatisation, free movement of capital and people , when that suits capital.)

This had failed here and in US.

My point is two things. That the "centre" ground was not "muddy". It was a coherent ideological position. "Principled". It's failed.

As I know redsquirrel has questioned the idea that the centre ground is liberal.

I disagree with this. I don't think juxtaposing principled Vs compromisers stands up. The present muddy centre ground is a product of Thatcherism. Thatcher, for all I disagree with her, stuck to her "principles". She not only transformed the Tory party she also transformed the "common sense" of politics. As my name sske would say.

Thatcher as no compromiser.

Blair's "Third Way" political project was underlined by the work of theorists like Giddens. As well as the "end of history" of Fukuyama.

Can be categorised as a "principled" position.

As I've posted elsewhere the Evening Standard under Osborne has made an argument for continuing the "centre" ground. A Blairite Labour party and Cameronite Tory party. This appeared to be the culmination of the "end of history" thesis. Politics run by who would best manage Capitalism. So called neo liberal Capitalism.

This had failed here and in US.

My point is two things. That the "centre" ground was not "muddy". It was a coherent ideological position. "Principled". It's failed.

As I know redsquirrel has questioned the idea that the centre ground is liberal.

I would agree with this.

Click to expand...

I think that you are talking about the politicians and I am talking about the voters. Most ordinary voters do not concern themselves with political theory. Most people vote with a mixture of self-interest, habit and principle. Their vote is a compromise - they talk about the 'least worst'. Most people are not members of political parties.

Anyway, interesting - thank you. I shall think more about what you've said.

I think that you are talking about the politicians and I am talking about the voters. Most ordinary voters do not concern themselves with political theory. Most people vote with a mixture of self-interest, habit and principle. Their vote is a compromise - they talk about the 'least worst'. Most people are not members of political parties.

Anyway, interesting - thank you. I shall think more about what you've said.

Click to expand...

I was replying to your opinion stated in your post. You are now extending your view onto "ordinary" voters.

On compromise. Fair number of left groups are saying to vote Labour. Not take a "pure" position. Support Labour party as Tories are worse. But not uncritical support.

I'm wary of this "ordinary" voter line. Evening Standard has been doing this in it's commentator pages. That the increase in membership of Labour party under Corbyn is to be discounted as these aren't "ordinary" people.

Of course it's well known tactic of the right to smear those who are left of centre as not part of the mainstream.

I was replying to your opinion stated in your post. You are now extending your view onto "ordinary" voters.

On compromise. Fair number of left groups are saying to vote Labour. Not take a "pure" position. Support Labour party as Tories are worse. But not uncritical support.

I'm wary of this "ordinary" voter line. Evening Standard has been doing this in it's commentator pages. That the increase in membership of Labour party under Corbyn is to be discounted as these aren't "ordinary" people.

Of course it's well known tactic of the right to smear those who are left of centre as not part of the mainstream.

Who are these "ordinary voters"? I come across a wide range of opinions. From wanting this country to be more like Cuba and someone I know wanting to bring back National Service. Both ordinary (working class) people I know who aren't in political parties. I don't see either of them interested in the " muddy " political centre.

Saw the Economist magazine had front page asking where the political centre had gone. (Btw the political centre was never that liberali if you are working class. )As the Blairites found out. They thought the old class lines had gone for good. The traditional working class were a residual rump who could be ignored. Politics was based around the middle ground.

Unfortunately for the advocates of the middle ground the working class didn't dissappear.

In a small way I can see this in Loughborough Junction. The Loughborough Council estate residents felt they have for years been treated with contempt by "centre" politicians.

The rise of so called populist politics of right and left is due to this.

Interesting read. Very depressing last para though as I'm hearing it's pretty much been called for her.

What this general election offers in Vauxhall is a choice between voting for the party that helped the Tories introduce the austerity regime which is still blighting lives seven years on, or voting for a candidate who is pro-Brexit, pro-Farage, pro-May, pro-handgun, and backed by Ukip. Isn’t representative democracy great? Perhaps the most emblematic, and the most dispiriting, thing about this local contest is that our votes won’t have much effect on the things that affect us. The outcome of the Vauxhall contest in the general election will have no bearing on any of the outstanding problems facing the area: it will have no effect on the housing crisis, no effect on the hollowing out of Central London by absentee capital, no effect on health inequality. It will, however, give voters who think Brexit is a disaster a chance to let our feelings be known. In that one sense and that sense only, it gives us a lever. I think quite a few of us are going to pull it.

Interesting read. Very depressing last para though as I'm hearing it's pretty much been called for her.

Click to expand...

The main point for me is that this system of first past the post always as a tendecy to avoid innovation and to impose top-down government.
A proportional voting system would mean a wider choice.

By the way my understanding is that Mrs May and the Tory party are keen to remove the proportional element in local government - so you certainly will never see PR used in Manchester Council for example, and I imagine the GLA may well be "reformed" to strip out the third party representation we currently have.

I appreciate it is not compulsory to retire any more - but Kate Hoey at 71 has had a fair innings. Retiring on an inflation-proof parliamentary pension to her luxury pad in St Katherine's Dock is surely ample reward for buggering up the county for the next 50 years!